McNEAL v. NAGLE

McNEAL v. NAGLE
1914 OK 147
139 P. 958
40 Okla. 521
Case Number: 3342
Decided: 03/24/1914
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McNEAL
v.
NAGLE et ux.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR -- Record -- Review -- Sufficiency of Evidence. Where the evidence reasonably tends to support the judgment the same will be affirmed.

Error from County Court, Kingfisher County; John M. Graham, Judge.

Action by Lizzie B. McNeal against P. S. Nagle and Angie Nagle, his wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Will H. Chappell and Cunningham & Weise, for plaintiff in error
John T. Bradley, Jr., and W. A. McCartney, for defendants in error

TURNER, J.

¶1 On August 6, 1906, the plaintiff in error, Lizzie B. McNeal, as payee, sued defendants in error, P. S. Nagle and Angie Nagle, his wife, in the probate court of Kingfisher county, as makers, on a promissory note, for $ 145, dated January 21, 1905, payable in one year thereafter. By unverified answer defendants pleaded a general denial and want of consideration. There was trial to the court and judgment for defendants, in effect sustaining their plea, and plaintiff brings the case here.

¶2 The judgment is neither contrary to law nor to the evidence, as assigned. There were but two witnesses. Nagle, to support his plea, testified that while United States marshal of that district it was his custom to issue marshal's certificates to his deputies for services rendered; that these certificates evidenced an indebtedness subject to approval by the Department of Justice; that before that time numbers of them were sold; that one Severns, and a brother of plaintiff, bought a lot of them with funds furnished by the brother, and, thereafter, and while they were subject to approval, forced him to take them up by the execution of a note for some $ 500; that some of the certificates were afterwards paid and the note correspondingly reduced; that those remaining unpaid represented the amount for which the note sued on was given. To meet this the brother of plaintiff swore positively the other way, but as the court found for defendants, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment, the same is affirmed.

¶3 All the Justices concur.